Discussion Title: Do people have a right to not wear a mask in public spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic?

1. People should have a right to not wear a mask in public spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.1. Pro: A one-size-fits-all prescription to good health is both ideologically and practically dangerous.
1.1.1. Pro: It is not reasonable for everyone to wear masks.
1.1.1.1. Pro: Individuals who have undergone trauma may find it [difficult](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessicagold/2020/07/01/feeling-anxious-about-wearing-a-mask-here-are-5-ways-to-overcome-it/#5d27836f4629) to wear a mask because it brings back memories of their trauma.
1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Many rape survivors, for whom wearing a mask can trigger trauma and flashbacks, are being [stigmatized](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/aug/10/survivors-say-they-are-being-stigmatised-for-not-wearing-masks) for not wearing masks.
1.1.1.2. Con: Those who cannot wear masks for various medical reasons should be treated as exceptions to the rule. The rule should still apply to the general public.
1.1.1.2.1. Con: There is no practical method to consistently grant exceptions.
1.1.1.3. Pro: In some economically weaker countries, the poor have to choose between [spending their money on a mask](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/4/28/buy-a-mask-or-food-south-asias-poor-face-stark-choice) and spending it on essential goods such as food.
1.1.1.3.1. Con: This just means that the government has an obligation to provide masks to those who can't afford them. Also, any store or location that requires mask use, could be made to offer them as well. But it does not negate the need for the masks themselves.
1.1.1.4. Con: General protocols for well-being are usually followed before considering individual-specific treatments or protocols.
1.1.1.5. Pro: In situations where the [availability of medical-grade masks](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17922-x) is limited, they should be worn primarily by symptomatic and vulnerable people.
1.1.1.6. Pro: For people with certain underlying conditions and medical considerations, mask wearing is not possible.
1.1.1.6.1. Pro: Wearing a mask [can induce](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2020/05/11/some-autistic-people-cant-tolerate-face-masks-heres-how-were-managing-with-our-son/) panic and sensory overload for some people on the autism spectrum.
1.1.1.6.2. Pro: For people with disorders that impair their mobility \(such as [cerebral palsy](https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-cerebral-palsy-9406)\) and could thus prevent them from easily wearing or removing a mask, such a requirement would be difficult to meet.
1.1.1.6.3. Pro: Official recommendations [state](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html) that a person with breathing difficulties should not wear a mask.
1.1.1.6.4. Pro: Individuals with facial deformities that [impede](https://jamanetwork.com/channels/health-forum/fullarticle/2768376) the wearing of a mask cannot wear masks.
1.1.2. Con: This prescription responds to the attributes of the the virus and its transmission, which are unrelated to the difference between people.
1.1.2.1. Pro: COVID-19 is [universally transmitted](https://www.google.com/search?q=how+is+covid+19+transmitted&rlz=1C1JZAP_enTR925TR926&oq=how+is+COVID+&aqs=chrome.0.0i457j0j69i57j0l2j69i60l3.210869j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) through infected secretions and through respiratory droplets.
1.1.3. Con: The advice to wear masks is not a prescription but a public health guideline for everyone. A [prescription](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_prescription), by definition, is a part of an individual treatment plan.
1.1.4. Con: During a world pandemic, it is important to be guided by those who are more informed than we are.
1.1.4.1. Pro: Scientific facts are not moved by an individual's ideology, no matter how much that individual might think so. Even if people believe they can fly, it will not save them when they jump off an extremely tall building.
1.1.4.1.1. Con: It is not always easy to determine what is fact and what is not, especially when considering a new disease that is still the subject of [significant research.](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w)
1.1.4.1.1.1. Con: While certain attributes of the virus are still being investigated, the [overwhelming consensus](https://www.kff.org/news-summary/scientific-consensus-forming-over-effectiveness-of-mask-use-to-prevent-novel-coronavirus-spread-more-countries-making-masks-mandatory/) is that the wearing of masks will limit the spread of the virus.
1.1.5. Pro: The UK government has made [exceptions](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own) to the rule requiring masks for specific groups of people. This is an acknowledgement of the practical dangers of a one-size-fits-all prescription.
1.1.5.1. Pro: [Children under the age of 11](https://www.asthma.org.uk/advice/triggers/coronavirus-covid-19/what-should-people-with-asthma-do-now/should-i-wear-a-face-mask-or-face-covering/) do not need to wear masks.
1.1.5.1.1. Con: The new viral strain, SARS-CoV-2 VOC-202012/01, appears to be [infecting children](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-risk-related-to-spread-of-new-SARS-CoV-2-variants-EU-EEA.pdf) as well \(p. 11\). Thus, there is now a need for children under the age of 11 to also wear masks.
1.1.5.2. Pro: Individuals with physical or mental illnesses or impairments [are exempt](https://www.asthma.org.uk/advice/triggers/coronavirus-covid-19/what-should-people-with-asthma-do-now/should-i-wear-a-face-mask-or-face-covering/) from wearing masks.
1.2. Con: Not wearing a mask violates another person's right to remain healthy.
1.2.1. Pro: The right to health has been recognized by a number of international bodies.
1.2.1.1. Pro: The WHO Constitution [recognizes](https://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf) the right to health for all individuals.
1.2.1.2. Pro: The Universal Declaration of Rights [considers](https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/) health to be a component of the right to an adequate standard of living.
1.2.1.3. Pro: The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [recognized](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx) health as a human right in Article 12.
1.2.1.3.1. Pro: Economic, social and cultural rights are considered [human rights](https://www.amnesty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Amnesty-International-Ireland-FAQ-ESC-Rights-1.pdf) and legally enforceable.
1.2.1.4. Con: Some rights are only vertically applicable, such that an individual's rights can only be enforced against the state, rather than against other citizens.
1.2.1.4.1. Con: International human rights are increasingly being viewed as having a [horizontal](https://grojil.org/2018/08/01/the-horizontal-effect-of-international-human-rights-law/) component. This means that rights would be enforceable against other private bodies.
1.2.2. Con: Wearing a mask is not a sufficient measure to prevent all virus transmissions.
1.2.2.1. Con: There are [several strands of evidence](http://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf) supporting the efficacy of masks.
1.2.2.1.1. Pro: [An experiment](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800) using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometres were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth.
1.2.2.1.2. Pro: A recent study published in [Health Affairs](https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818) compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in the daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage points.
1.2.2.1.3. Pro: [A man flew from China to Toronto](https://www.cmaj.ca/content/192/15/E410) and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. He had a dry cough and wore a mask on the flight, and all 25 people closest to him on the flight tested negative for COVID-19.
1.2.2.1.4. Pro: [In one simulation](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.13553.pdf), researchers predicted that 80 percent of the population wearing masks would do more to reduce COVID-19 spread than a strict lockdown \(p.5\).
1.2.2.1.4.1. Pro: Research suggests that widespread mask-wearing could not only help contain the resurgence of the virus but [reduce the need for social distancing measures.](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1132-9#Sec6)
1.2.2.1.5. Pro: The latest forecast from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation suggests that [33,060 deaths could be avoided](http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/new-ihme-covid-19-model-projects-nearly-180000-us-deaths) by October 1 if 95 percent of people wore masks in public.
1.2.2.1.6. Pro: [Scientific research](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8) has found positive effects of wearing masks.
1.2.2.1.7. Pro: Countries that adopted [widespread usage of masks](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1132-9#Sec6), such as Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, and Iceland, have seen a reduction in transmission of the virus.
1.2.2.2. Pro: You could still [catch the virus](https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2020/catching-coronavirus-through-your-eyes.html#:~:text=It%20may%20be%20possible%2C%20says) through the membranes in your eyes, a risk that masking does not eliminate.
1.2.2.2.1. Con: One is [less likely](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/31/health/covid-19-through-eyes-wellness-trnd/index.html) to catch COVID-19 through one's eyes, in comparison to one's nose or mouth.
1.2.2.3. Con: While wearing a mask is not sufficient in and of itself, masks are necessary as part of a [comprehensive strategy of measures](https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks) to combat the transmission of COVID-19.
1.2.2.4. Pro: It is only a necessity if masks would work against viruses. [More peer-reviewed unbiased research](https://principia-scientific.com/the-science-masks-are-neither-effective-nor-safe/) prove that masks do not work against viruses and there is a certain amount of health damage, poor performance and discomfort to the wearer. Limited & very recent non peer reviewed “research” are saying masks do not harm the wearer and could provide, in a closed space \(eg car\) a max 10min protection against vapors from exhalation. Hence it remains a matter of rights and not a necessity.
1.2.2.4.1. Con: The CDC said that "[face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as frequent hand-washing and social distancing, help slow the spread of the virus.](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html)" They also explained [how the science behind it works](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html). This has been reinforced by other [scientific reports](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7), including a [meta study of over 172 studies from over 16 countries showed a reduced risk by 85%](https://files.nc.gov/covid/documents/info-for/The-effectiveness-of-face-masks-to-prevent-SARS-CoV.pdf).
1.2.2.4.2. Con: The [first study](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2) cited in this article ultimately recommended the use of face-masks, pointing out that many of the studies being assessed had poor design and reporting.
1.2.2.4.3. Con: The [second study](https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article) cited by the article was published by the CDC in May 2020. The CDC has since retracted this assessment and now [recommends](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/15/fact-check-cdc-report-masks-covid-19-tests-misinterpreted/3643312001/) that face masks be used for their effectiveness.
1.2.2.4.3.1. Pro: The CDC [has noted](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3IgxGNkBWJye8u-OO__noAaerGV61o-qzOWbd4rsOcdQc_XeXUQ-bmG9Q) that removing face masks during eating or drinking is enough exposure for a person to contract COVID-19 \(p. 1263\). Individuals who typically wear masks but remove them at restaurants thus malign the data regarding the effectiveness of masks.
1.2.2.4.4. Con: The [third study](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1.full.pdf) cited by this article demonstrated a 6% reduction in the possibility of contracting a respiratory illness, and a 19% reduction when infected and uninfected persons all wore masks. While the study did not recommend the use of facemasks, it did recognize the need for further trials owing to its own limitations.
1.2.2.4.5. Con: The [fourth study](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214) cited in this article compared the effectiveness of N95 and medical masks, deeming them to be similarly effective. This does not negate that the masks are, in fact, effective.
1.2.2.4.6. Con: The source, Principa Scientific, is noted for its [fringe views](https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international), such as opposing the idea that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
1.2.3. Con: People definitely have a right to not wear a mask, whenever it will not cause harm to someone else.
1.2.3.1. Con: In public spaces, people could [cause harm to someone else](https://theconversation.com/why-wear-face-masks-in-public-heres-what-the-research-shows-135623), and so do not have a right not to wear a mask.
1.2.3.2. Con: It is difficult for people to make an assessment of the harm they might cause because a significant proportion of COVID-19 infections are [mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic infections](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17922-x), and thus difficult to account for.
1.2.4. Pro: Not wearing a mask is selfish. Wearing it is a sign of being respectful towards others and caring about their safety.
1.2.4.1. Con: Virtue signaling represented by the decision to wear or discard one's mask is driving a cultural clash.
1.2.4.1.1. Pro: Wearing masks has become a type of [virtue signaling](https://theconversation.com/mask-or-no-mask-this-simple-ethical-approach-can-help-with-your-pandemic-etiquette-144552) that is driving society apart.
1.2.4.1.2. Con: Masks are necessary for the public health and [should be stripped of](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/masks-are-tool-not-symbol/611134/) any extra political or symbolic importance that gets in the way of their medical relevance.
1.2.4.1.3. Pro: President Trump's attitude has [fueled the belief](https://www.springhopeenterprise.com/stories/face-masks-shouldnt-become-partisan-props,209140?) that the wearing of masks is a type of virtue-signalling and turned this choice into a partisan issue.
1.2.4.1.4. Pro: The popularization of the idea that masks are worn to protect others and not oneself has perpetuated the notion that the wearing of masks is an [ostentatious type](https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/05/face-mask-videos-culture-wars-trump-logic/612139/) of altruism.
1.2.4.2. Pro: People who say this are only thinking selfishly. You are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions, however you also have to understand that other people be entitled to theirs. You are putting that person in danger just because you believe you don't need it.
1.2.4.2.1. Con: The statement is stipulating that even though one’s opinion is against masks, One should wear them to protect others. For this to be a moral issue, you need solid proof that masks do work against viruses which was never proved. Which makes these kinds of statements untrue and immoral.
1.2.4.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.2.1.
1.2.5. Pro: Infecting another person by not wearing a mask could constitute '[injury](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/injury#:~:text=An%20injury%20is%20a%20harm,essential%20element%20of%20unintentional%20torts)' to them.
1.2.5.1. Pro: Since [COVID-19 cases are increasing](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51235105), wearing masks in public spaces is [important to keep people safe](https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks).
1.2.5.2. Pro: There is growing evidence that the [COVID-19 virus could be airborne](http://dominique.regards.free.fr/blog/images/documents_pdf/200602_l-Morawska_it-is-time-to-address-airborne-transmission-of-covid-19-clinical-infectious-diseases.pdf). This means that people can unwillingly spread the virus to others in the vicinity through exhalation.
1.2.5.2.1. Pro: In contexts where symptomatic COVID-19 patients were present, but [aerosol-generating procedures](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0213911120301990#bib0250) were not performed, the quantity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected in the air.
1.2.5.2.2. Pro: Nearly 200 scientists [issued a statement](https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/9/2311/5867798) in which they appealed to the general community to recognize the evidence for the virus being airborne and to take measures accordingly.
1.2.5.2.3. Pro: The CDC's website has been [updated](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/scientific-brief-sars-cov-2.html) to reflect the growing body of evidence indicating that COVID-19 is airborne.
1.2.6. Pro: The wearing of a mask constitutes a civic duty.
1.2.6.1. Pro: The right to health for the immunocompromised and vulnerable people can only be protected by [the rest of society and others](https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/17/alyson-pinkelman-wear/) doing their part, in line with science-backed evidence on how to best prevent the spread of disease. Thus, society has the civic duty of protecting these groups' rights and health by wearing masks and following instructions from health organizations.
1.2.6.2. Pro: We owe a [moral obligation](http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2020/03/pandemic-ethics-the-unilateralist-curse-and-covid-19-or-why-you-should-stay-home/) to each other in society to take actions that reduce suffering and increase well-being.
1.2.6.3. Pro: Criminalizing the transmission of an illness, [such as HIV](https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html), suggests that society believes that preventing the spread of illness is a civic duty.
1.2.6.3.1. Pro: It is already [illegal](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/22/621089984/in-some-f-you-ve-got-hep-c-spitting-can-be-a-felony) to purposefully spread some diseases, and not wearing a mask is essentially the same thing.
1.2.6.3.1.1. Con: Even though TB can also [be spread](https://www.cdc.gov/tb/topic/basics/howtbspreads.htm#:~:text=TB%20bacteria%20are%20spread%20through,these%20bacteria%20and%20become%20infected.) when an infected person coughs, wearing masks was never mandated. This shows that the morality being turned to in this situation is highly selective and thus hypocritical.
1.2.6.3.1.1.1. Con: Patients with [tuberculosis](http://www.nnuh.nhs.uk/publication/download/patients-with-confirmed-or-suspected-tb-tuberculosis-c10-v4-1) are required to wear masks in some medical contexts.
1.2.6.3.1.2. Con: Not wearing a mask does not necessarily mean that the disease [will spread](https://www.cnet.com/health/pssst-your-face-mask-doesnt-make-you-invincible-against-the-coronavirus-sorry/) if people continue to take the other [precautions](https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public) listed, such as to socially distance and thoroughly wash their hands.
1.2.6.3.1.2.1. Con: It is sufficient that the [refusal to wear masks](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21299527/masks-coronavirus-covid-19-studies-research-evidence) increases the risk of transmission for it to be disallowed.
1.2.7. Con: Wearing a mask causes more carbon dioxide inhalation and thereby can be a health risk for some people. This violates their right to remain healthy.
1.2.7.1. Con: [Research](https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202007-812RL) has shown that masks do not affect the gas exchange in respiration.
1.2.7.2. Con: Even in patients with lung disease, a [study](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201002091039.htm) found that face masks did not cause over-exposure to carbon dioxide.
1.2.7.3. Con: Masks [do not](https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/debunked-myths-about-face-masks) selectively filter carbon dioxide versus oxygen, nor do they store significant amounts of CO2 that can be re-inhaled.
1.2.7.3.1. Con: This is a quite simplistic way to put it when actually things are far more complex. The argument against masks is not based on CO2 vs O. It is based on the [penetration rate](https://www.globalresearch.ca/face-masks-pose-serious-risks-healthy/5712649) as well as on the fact that re-inhaling the high amounts of contaminated particles can harm you. Recent pseudo-studies have been pushed by media but look for old ones before 2020 that were unbiased and done with a control group.
1.2.8. Pro: The protection of natural rights meant guaranteeing every individual life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Wearing masks protect everybody else's right to life and as well as your personal health.
1.2.8.1. Pro: The right to one's health is fundamental because any other rights \(freedom of speech, right to practice one's religion\) can only be actualized when a person is in sound health and can partake in such activities.
1.2.8.1.1. Pro: Individuals infected may be [unable to do](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/symptoms-causes/syc-20479963) daily activities and may even need to be ventilated.
1.3. Pro: Educating people will more effectively guide them to make responsible decisions regarding mask-wearing.
1.3.1. Con: Education is insufficient due to barriers that limit people's receptivity to information outlining the importance and effectiveness of masks.
1.3.1.1. Pro: The COVID-19 pandemic has been politicized.
1.3.1.1.1. Pro: A [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332744/) used two newspapers to compare how information regarding COVID-19 has been politicized and used for ideological interests.
1.3.1.1.2. Pro: Mask-wearing was politicized and stigmatized from the onset of the pandemic.
1.3.1.1.2.1. Pro: The [origin of the pandemic](https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/how-origins-covid-19-became-politicized) has been used to fuel political agendas concerning China-US relations.
1.3.1.1.2.2. Pro: Asian Americans who wore masks [were attacked and killed](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52714804) in racist attacks.
1.3.1.1.2.3. Pro: Images of Asians wearing masks were most [commonly used](https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/3/6/21166625/coronavirus-photos-racism) in reports regarding COVID-19.
1.3.1.1.3. Pro: In the US, the choice to wear a mask has become a [partisan issue](https://www.businessinsider.com/why-mask-wearing-politically-divisive-america-psychologists-explain-2020-8), as the [majority](https://news.gallup.com/poll/315590/americans-face-mask-usage-varies-greatly-demographics.aspx) of anti-maskers identify as Republicans.
1.3.1.1.3.1. Pro: The wearing of masks became associated with anti-Trump sentiment after Trump [stated](https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-talks-juneteenth-john-bolton-economy-in-wsj-interview-11592493771) that only those who did not like him wore masks.
1.3.1.1.3.2. Pro: A survey in June found that only [29%](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/25/republicans-democrats-move-even-further-apart-in-coronavirus-concerns/) of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.
1.3.1.1.4. Pro: Politicization makes it harder for a person to accept new information and change their mind on a matter.
1.3.1.1.4.1. Pro: A [study](https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/28/14088992/brain-study-change-minds) found that when provided with evidence that runs contrary to one's political inclinations, people are extremely resistant to changing their minds.
1.3.1.2. Pro: Misinformation has been rife during the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.3.1.2.1. Pro: The onset of the pandemic was accompanied by a [flood of misinformation](http://www.primaonline.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/COVID-19_reuters.pdf) \(p. 2\).
1.3.1.2.2. Pro: Misinformation about [masks](https://www.cnet.com/health/8-dangerous-covid-19-face-mask-myths-you-need-to-stop-believing/) specifically has been widespread.
1.3.1.2.3. Con: To combat the problem of misinformation, the number of fact-checking organizations have [increased](https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2019/number-of-fact-checking-outlets-surges-to-188-in-more-than-60-countries/) to try to keep up with the work.
1.3.1.2.4. Pro: Misinformation has been [undermining efforts](https://www.modernhealthcare.com/safety/misinformation-coronavirus-proving-highly-contagious) to mitigate the spread of the virus.
1.3.1.3. Con: It is easier to dismantle these barriers than it is to force everyone to wear masks.
1.3.2. Con: The effectiveness of education does not preclude the use of legal enforcement.
1.3.2.1. Pro: Education can complement enforcement, if people are educated as to why they are being made to wear masks in public spaces.
1.3.3. Pro: Education and encouragement to wear a mask would likely provoke less anger in people than telling them that they must wear one, and do not have the right to.
1.3.3.1. Pro: Backlash is predicted by [politicians](https://globalnews.ca/news/7486474/alberta-mask-mandate-backlash-jason-kenney-covid/) who have discussed mask mandates.
1.3.3.1.1. Pro: Mandatory face mask wearing, and the undercutting of people's rights not to wear one, provoked [protests](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-53802226) in Spain.
1.3.3.1.2. Con: In many places, such as [Florida](https://www.aarp.org/health/healthy-living/info-2020/states-mask-mandates-coronavirus.html#Arizona), mask wearing is not mandatory, and yet there have been [protests](https://abc7news.com/viral-target-anti-mask-video-protesters-parade-around-store-demand-customers-remove-face-masks-rant-caught-on/6428893/).
1.3.3.2. Pro: [Education](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/anti-mask-rally-calgary-1.5820904), and public messaging, could combat anti-mask sentiment.
1.3.3.3. Con: Even when faced with evidence about the effectiveness of masks, [anti-maskers](https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/8/7/21357400/anti-mask-protest-rallies-donald-trump-covid-19) have ignored this information and consider the directions to be an infringement of their freedom.
1.3.3.3.1. Pro: The population has been faced with many many videos, articles, press conference that underline the benefits of wearing a mask. However, anti-maskers who have already decided what they believe in [refuse to hear](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53477121) the attempts at education. The only solution is to require masks.
1.3.3.3.2. Con: A well-planned [communication strategy](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ecpe/vaccines-social-media-spread-misinformation/) that tailors messages according to different audiences is effective in combating misinformation concerning medical choices.
1.3.4. Con: Enforcement turns mask-wearing into a requirement that does not reflect on the individual and their personal choices. This limits adverse outcomes associated with mask wearing.
1.3.4.1. Pro: Many students are [being bullied](https://abc13.com/face-masks-back-to-school-advice-deal-with-bullies-cdc-guidelines-on/6366890/) in schools for their choice in either wearing or not wearing a mask.
1.3.4.2. Pro: People who choose to keep their mask on in settings where mask-wearing is a choice are often [stigmatized.](https://sps.columbia.edu/news/dr-robert-klitzman-social-stigma-around-wearing-mask-nyt)
1.3.5. Pro: Most anti-maskers are not educated on the benefits of wearing masks; whereas government officials and researchers who recommend masks to the point of making it mandatory are much more informed.
1.3.5.1. Pro: Individuals who have attained higher levels of education are [more likely](https://news.gallup.com/poll/308678/americans-reported-face-masks-surges-past-week.aspx) to wear masks.
1.3.6. Con: Statistical modeling studies of [mortality rate](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1132-9) shows that masks significantly reduce the loss of life. The state should not risk lives by betting on the impact of public education.
1.3.6.1. Pro: By the time people are educated, the damage may have already been done.
1.3.6.1.1. Pro: Education often takes time, and people could be spreading the virus without a mask in the meantime.
1.3.6.1.2. Con: If education leads to compliance among more people, then, on net, less damage will be done.
1.4. Pro: Enforcing mask-wearing further marginalizes vulnerable groups of people.
1.4.1. Pro: Enforcing mask-wearing further stigmatize people who are [disabled, have a mental disability, and minors](https://theconversation.com/its-easy-to-judge-but-some-people-really-cant-wear-a-mask-143258).
1.4.1.1. Con: Governments have created [exemptions](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own) for disabled people, or for those who cannot wear a mask for medical reasons.
1.4.1.2. Pro: Many people who cannot wear masks have been [attacked, assaulted, and harassed](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2020/07/25/ill-kill-you-tensions-over-people-not-wearing-mask-continue-to-boil-over/?sh=2f194cfd7ed4).
1.4.2. Con: Not imposing and enforcing mask-wearing is [costing human lives](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-race-ethnicity.html) to populations already experiencing social inequities.
1.4.2.1. Pro: Mask-wearing leads to [low virus transmission](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/wearing-a-mask-may-reduce-how-sick-you-get-from-covid-19). A low virus transmission rate would protect people \(who cannot wear a mask for health reasons\) against the virus.
1.4.2.2. Pro: The elderly are [more prone](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/older-adults.html) to experiencing worse symptoms of COVID-19. Even though younger people might still be okay and recover without too much damage, the elderly might not.
1.4.2.3. Con: Enforcing mask wearing makes high-risk people less visible. If not enforced, wearing the mask could be a more powerful reminder for those who chose not to wear a mask to keep their distance.
1.4.3. Con: Part of the role of government is to protect all of its citizens. If masks are widely believed to provide some protection, then the government should impose wearing masks.
1.4.4. Pro: Masks have been associated with a rise in [social inequality](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/garments-/-textiles/how-masks-have-changed-the-narrative-in-a-covid-infected-world/a-rise-in-social-inequality/slideshow/76258238.cms) in some countries.
1.4.4.1. Con: Given that masks help protect against COVID-19, and a rise in COVID-19 can exacerbate [health inequalities](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587\(20\)30225-4/fulltext), masks can be said to help prevent inequality.
1.4.4.1.1. Pro: The [variable uptake](https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2001) of masks could exacerbate health inequalities.
1.4.4.1.2. Pro: If one does not wear a mask, and gets sick on account of contracting COVID-19, [medical debt](https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3097) could exacerbate inequality.
1.4.4.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.3.
1.4.4.3. Con: Exposing social inequality is the first step in fixing it. But exposing it is not the cause. The inequality was there all along. Now people are just more aware of it, so can do something about it to fix it.
1.5. Con: Allowing people to access public services without masks can be very dangerous because of the high risk of infection. Mandating masks is the only way to keep them open.
1.5.1. Pro: According to [studies](https://www.livescience.com/covid19-risk-train.html), the use of face-masks and social distancing guidelines together significantly reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19 so that public transport facilities can continue to operate.
1.5.2. Pro: The use of face masks is [essential](https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health/wellness/a32038711/should-i-wear-face-masks-to-grocery-stores-coronavirus/) in maintaining the safe use of indoor public spaces such as grocery stores.
1.5.2.1. Pro: It is difficult to ensure [social distancing](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/face-masks-public-transportation.html) is taking place on public transport, and so masks play an important role in limiting the spread of COVID-19.
1.5.2.2. Pro: [Grocery](https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-shopping-tips-to-keep-you-safe-at-the-supermarket-137013) stores are potential sources of infection because many people must share the same small space.
1.5.3. Pro: Public services are essential for the economy and it is critical that they remain open.
1.5.3.1. Pro: Benefits to business outputs increase to [$31 million](https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Resources/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/vary.pdf) when public transport is invested in \(p. E-2\)
1.5.3.2. Con: Economic considerations should not take precedence over the lives of individuals.
1.5.4. Con: All non-essential public services should have been closed during the pandemic. Masks became a convenient excuse to keep them open, despite the obvious risks.
1.5.4.1. Pro: [Public servants](https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/un-desa-policy-brief-79-the-role-of-public-service-and-public-servants-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/) were at the frontlines of the pandemic.
1.5.4.2. Con: Public transport was needed to ensure [essential workers](https://www.npr.org/2020/05/21/860009020/many-essential-employees-still-rely-on-buses-for-daily-commute) were able to reach their places of work. Wearing masks helped protect them on their commute.
1.5.4.3. Con: Many [non-essential public services](https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/10/05/920367787/regal-movie-chain-will-close-all-536-u-s-theaters-on-thursday) did close down throughput the pandemic.
1.5.4.3.1. Con: Gun stores and any employees working there were included as an ['essential service](https://www.wsj.com/articles/gun-stores-ruled-essential-businesses-during-coronavirus-shutdowns-11585601189)' and allowed to stay open in the US, despite the fact that guns are not a daily necessity.
1.5.4.3.2. Con: In France, pastry and wine shops were allowed to [stay open](https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/what-s-essential-france-has-pastry-wine-while-us-has-golf-guns-and-ganja-20200329-p54f08.html) during the pandemic.
1.5.4.4. Con: [Statistical analyses](https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259) of the number of cases, as well as the number of deaths do not support the claim of "obvious risks".
1.5.4.4.1. Con: Absolute numbers do not reflect the actual risk of contracting COVID-19. [Depending on](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/current-risk-assessment-novel-coronavirus-situation) the dominant variant, the population density, and the strength of protective measures, COVID-19 spreads rapidly. The more people that are infected, the greater the number of people constituting the [3.4% mortality rate](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/).
1.6. Pro: People's choice to not wear a mask must be respected.
1.6.1. Pro: People have the right to [bodily autonomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity) and integrity. They should not be forced to wear masks if they don't wish to.
1.6.1.1. Con: This right to bodily autonomy is not without limits. Prostitution is [illegal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_by_region) in many countries.
1.6.1.2. Con: This right ends when it infringes on other people's fundamental rights or causes harm to others.
1.6.1.2.1. Pro: Not wearing masks cannot be allowed because it infringes upon other people's rights to bodily integrity by putting their physical health at risk.
1.6.1.3. Pro: In the US, the right to bodily autonomy is [protected](https://medium.com/inside-of-elle-beau/body-autonomy-is-protected-by-the-constitution-ede4fb256ebb#:~:text=Body%20autonomy%20is%20a%20critical,as%20decided%20in%20Griswold%20v.&text=Douglas%20wrote%20for%20the%20majority,clause%20of%20the%20Fifth%20Amendment.) by the Constitution.
1.6.1.3.1. Con: The [Jacobsen v. Massachusetts](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/197us11) case in the US shows that masks do not violate the constitutional right to bodily integrity because they are required to protect public health.
1.6.1.4. Con: The right to bodily integrity and autonomy can be overridden if there is a strong case for [public welfare](https://theconversation.com/the-constitution-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-mask-mandates-142335) in doing so. Masks improve public welfare and therefore can be forced upon people.
1.6.2. Con: If people's choices cause harm to other people, their choices should be restricted.
1.6.2.1. Pro: Public health has long been used as a justification to curtail civil liberties, such as mandatory quarantine for those with [yellow fever](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-04-20/government-can-restrict-your-liberty-to-protect-public-health-courts-have-made-that-clear) in 1799.
1.6.2.1.1. Pro: The necessary curtailment of civil liberties \(such as in quarantines\) is justified to curb COVID-19 infections, the same way it was justified in the case of [yellow fever.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2272542/?page=1)
1.6.2.2. Pro: For most people, [wearing a mask poses no risk](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21299527/masks-coronavirus-covid-19-studies-research-evidence). It is therefore justified that people are required to wear a mask since it does no harm to people wearing them but reduces harm for others and oneself.
1.6.2.3. Pro: It is very well accepted that certain liberties should be curtailed where they would affect other people - consider the illegality of murder and theft.
1.6.3. Con: People's choice not to wear masks is based on flawed opinions concerning the effectiveness of masks. Mandating people to wear masks is based on facts regarding reducing transmission of COVID-19 infections.
1.6.3.1. Con: People are entitled to their own opinion on which facts matter.
1.6.3.1.1. Con: People are not entitled to their own opinion about which facts are real when it affects other people's right to good health.
1.6.3.1.2. Con: Society as a whole determines that some facts must matter for everyone so it can function. These are then written into law.
1.6.3.1.3. Pro: History has proven that [facts change over time.](https://www.businessinsider.com/changed-facts-2013-12) People are always choosing which facts matter.
1.6.3.1.3.1. Pro: Even the WHO advice on masks has [changed](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/who-changes-face-mask-advice-saying-people-should-wear-when-unable-to-distance-1.4272138) over time.
1.6.3.1.3.1.1. Con: The changes in advice are based on new and greater information arising. That doesn't delegitimize going by what we knew previously.
1.6.3.1.3.2. Con: Facts have never changed over time. Only our understanding of them. But at each point in time, it is still only legitimate to go by the best understanding of the facts that we have at that time.
1.6.3.2. Pro: Wearing facemasks help prevent the spread of [COVID-19](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21299527/masks-coronavirus-covid-19-studies-research-evidence).
1.6.3.2.1. Pro: A [study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2#Sec3) suggests that surgical masks can decrease the emission of influenza virus particles into the environment through respiratory droplets. As coronavirus is also spread through [respiratory droplets](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html), facemasks can decrease its spread.
1.6.3.2.1.1. Pro: The COVID-19 virus can spread through droplets that [linger in the air for some time](https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/7/13/21315879/covid-19-airborne-who-aerosol-droplet-transmission) before they another host. Masks can block at least some of such droplets.
1.6.3.2.2. Con: Many people do not wear [facemasks properly](https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-mask-properly-people-coronavirus-experts.html). This could increase the risk of infection to oneself or others.
1.6.3.2.2.1. Pro: People who don't know how to wear masks properly do not benefit from them.
1.6.3.2.2.1.1. Pro: People who [touch their faces while wearing masks](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/02/health/surgeon-general-coronavirus-masks-risk-trnd/index.html) reduce the degree of protection offered by the masks.
1.6.3.2.2.1.1.1. Con: [A study](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/people-who-wear-covid19-masks-touch-their-faces-less) has shown that people wearing are mask are less likely to touch their faces than those who don't wear a mask.
1.6.3.2.2.1.2. Pro: Many people [are not covering their noses](https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/health/leaving-your-nose-uncovered-defeats-the-purpose-of-wearing-a-mask/2412189/) with their masks, leaving them just as susceptible to the disease as they would have been had they not worn a mask at all.
1.6.3.2.2.1.2.1. Pro: The nose is a [key entry-point](https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/why-wearing-a-face-mask-halfway-can-be-dangerous) for the COVID-19 virus.
1.6.3.2.2.1.3. Con: People not wearing masks properly does not discredit their effectiveness in controlling the spread of the virus. It only suggests a need for public education regarding the correct use of masks.
1.6.3.2.2.2. Con: Even if some people wear masks incorrectly, the net effect of wearing masks is still positive.
1.6.3.2.2.2.1. Pro: A US [study](https://newsroom.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2020/04/Testing-Shows-Type-of-Cloth-Used-in-Homemade-Masks-Makes-a-Difference) has shown that, even though some cloth materials were less effective than others, they still capture at least a fraction of virus particles.
1.6.3.2.2.3. Con: People could be made aware of how to wear facemasks properly, thereby increasing their effectiveness.
1.6.3.2.2.3.1. Pro: Public health campaigns could help ground the wearing of masks in the social and cultural context of a location, which could lead to an [uptake](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200819194248.htm) in wearing.
1.6.3.2.3. Pro: Now that research has demonstrated its definite benefits, the [CDC website](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html) officially recommends that masks be worn.
1.6.3.2.4. Pro: A [systematic review](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(20\)31142-9/fulltext) of 172 studies revealed that masks are effective at protecting people form COVID-19.
1.6.3.2.5. Pro: The community's adoption of the practice of wearing masks [prevents the spread of infection](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748920301139), particularly in light of the fact that many people are asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19.
1.6.4. Pro: The freedoms guaranteed in the US constitution protect people's right to wear a mask.
1.6.4.1. Con: A [Florida Circuit Court](https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/1142/502020CA006920XXXXMB_144.pdf?1595945196) refused to grant an injunction against a mask mandate, saying no constitutional right has been implicated.
1.6.4.2. Pro: Insofar as the US constitution protects bodily autonomy, the right not to wear a mask is protected.
1.6.4.2.1. Con: [Bodily autonomy](https://www.vice.com/en/article/4agz9n/my-body-my-choice-doesnt-apply-to-coronavirus-covid19) only exists insofar as harm is not coming to another.
1.6.4.2.1.1. Con: Self-defense prioritizes bodily autonomy over harm to others.
1.6.4.2.2. Pro: [Various](https://www.leagle.com/decision/197810010padampc3d90189) [decisions](https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade) of the US Supreme Court have shown that the US Constitution can be extended to protect bodily integrity.
1.6.4.2.2.1. Con: There are other examples of the Supreme Court allowing government infringement on bodily autonomy \([p. 1120](https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=cl_pubs)\).
1.6.4.2.2.2. Con: Wearing a mask does not harm or infringe anyone's bodily integrity. It is totally non-invasive.
1.6.4.2.2.3. Con: Not wearing a mask is no different than wearing any other article of clothing. It is not unlike mandating clothing when going shopping and barring people entering the store naked.
1.6.4.2.3. Con: Every society requires some compromise over some rights for the greater good. The government's obligation to guarantee a safe environment for all civilians outweighs any individual's right to place others in harm's way.
1.6.4.3. Pro: The US constitution protects people's rights to choice. An extension of this is someone's right not to wear a mask.
1.6.4.3.1. Con: A mask does not violate the First Amendment right to free speech as wearing a mask does not keep people from [expressing themselves](https://theconversation.com/the-constitution-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-mask-mandates-142335).
1.6.4.3.2. Pro: The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects [freedom of speech.](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/)
1.6.4.3.2.1. Con: Mask mandates in and of themselves do not deal with words or symbols contained on the masks; they only require that masks be worn. Wearing a mask is not itself "speech." Thus, there is no speech, and the 1st Amendment does not apply.
1.6.4.4. Con: The US constitution makes no specific claims about masks, and so it is unclear whether its freedoms extend to mask wearing.
1.6.4.4.1. Con: The majority of rights and restrictions [are not explicitly mentioned](https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/resource/our-constitution/constitution-chapter-3-rights-constitution-protect/) in the Constitution because the role of the Constitution is to serve as [a guide](https://constitutionmakingforpeace.org/book/1-1-the-role-of-a-constitution/) for making more specific laws.
1.6.4.4.2. Con: Just because there is no explicit mention of masks in constitutions, does not mean the right is not there. [Unenumerated](https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ix/interps/131), or non-enumerated, rights are rights which are not expressly mentioned, but are nonetheless guaranteed by the constitution.
1.6.4.4.3. Pro: Constitutional [originalism](https://time.com/5670400/justice-neil-gorsuch-why-originalism-is-the-best-approach-to-the-constitution/) is a doctrine of constitutional interpretation which says when something is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, then it wasn't in the mind of the framers. Since masks are not mentioned, and probably weren't in the minds of the framers, then masks are not a part of the constitution.
1.6.4.4.3.1. Con: Even constitutional originalists [recognize](https://theconversation.com/what-is-originalism-debunking-the-myths-148488) that the rights in a constitutional can be applied to new and evolving situations, such as those brought about by new technologies or scenarios. Masks could fall into this category.
1.6.5. Con: The government has a moral obligation to reasonably restrict personal choices, especially ones that harm the public good.
1.6.5.1. Pro: When it comes to the matter of personal comforts versus social circumstances, one should fight for the benefit of the society \(in which they are involved\). This is the key reason when war approaches, the government imposes martial law, discarding individual rights to protect the whole country.
1.6.5.2. Pro: Not wearing a mask can constitute self-harm and the state is obligated to prevent such harm by limiting choice.
1.6.5.3. Con: The government has no moral obligations. Morality is a matter for the individual. The government's role is to exercise the creation of law and ensure its execution.
1.6.5.3.1. Con: Laws are based on the [principles and morals](http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1931/Theory-of-Relationship-between-Law-and-Morality.html#:~:text=Laws%20are%20generally%20based%20on,other%20to%20a%20great%20extent.&text=But%20good%20laws%20sometimes%20serve,encourage%20the%20growth%20of%20morality.) of society, thus making them an important consideration for governments.
1.6.5.3.2. Con: The state is a representation of the individuals within it and created by individuals for individuals. To claim that morality is a matter for the individuals is to accept that same obligation is conferred on to the things created by those individuals and for those individuals, including the state.
1.6.5.4. Pro: There are many instances of the government restricting the choices of people in the status quo.
1.6.5.4.1. Pro: The prohibition of murder reasonably limits individual choice.
1.6.5.4.2. Pro: Individual choice of clothing is already restricted by [laws prohibiting "indecent exposure"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing_laws_by_country), so it is not uncommon that the government regulates what people are allowed to wear \(or not wear\).
1.6.5.4.2.1. Con: Just because something is common, that does not make it right.
1.6.5.4.2.2. Pro: The government allows the merchants the right to refuse service based on attire. Many merchants tend to have a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" policy.
1.6.6. Con: Giving this right to a few people sends the wrong message to the general population. It diminishes the importance of masks and sets a precedent for those who are reluctantly wearing the mask now.
1.6.7. Pro: Wearing masks can be uncomfortable and inconvenient. If people choose not to wear them, they should not be forced to do so.
1.6.7.1. Pro: Wearing something that covers your mouth or nose makes breathing difficult which can affect your concentration on what you're working on.
1.6.7.2. Pro: Masks muffle sound which makes it harder to understand the person especially when we are not sure who is talking.
1.6.7.3. Con: There are many [techniques](https://www.cnet.com/health/face-mask-feeling-uncomfortable-heres-what-you-can-do-for-ear-and-head-relief/) people can adopt to make mask-wearing more comfortable.
1.7. Con: Public safety, above all else, should determine whether wearing a mask is required.
1.7.1. Pro: -> See 1.6.3.2.
1.7.2. Pro: Wearing a mask is not a matter of rights, but of necessity.
1.7.2.1. Pro: In the status quo, acts that harm or threaten public safety are restricted.
1.7.2.1.1. Pro: In many places, [smokefree laws](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/protection/improve_health/index.htm) are implemented because of the harms of second-hand smoking.
1.7.3. Con: People need to continue to earn money and access basic facilities in order to get by. Meeting these needs can conflict with public safety as a principle.
1.7.3.1. Pro: Essential workers need to continue working in order to provide basic facilities for the public.
1.7.3.1.1. Pro: Healthcare, food services, and public transportation are some of the sectors that [employ essential workers.](https://www.epi.org/blog/who-are-essential-workers-a-comprehensive-look-at-their-wages-demographics-and-unionization-rates/) These remained open even during the worst points of the pandemic.
1.7.3.2. Con: Different countries have introduced systems to [economically support](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52450958) their citizens, such as handouts.
1.7.3.3. Con: Wearing masks does not constitute a threat to most people's livelihoods and access to basic facilities. It is, therefore, reasonable to enforce this to protect public safety.
1.7.4. Pro: Despite their small number, the few people who do not wear masks defeat all the efforts of those who do.
1.7.4.1. Con: Even if a small group of people don't wear masks, the [majority's compliance](https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818) with the rule will still significantly curb the rate of transmission.
1.7.4.1.1. Con: It is in everyone's best interests to eradicate the virus completely, and as long as people don't wear masks/get the vaccine the virus will still be around and deadly.